The information from Metropolitan Philaret that Archimandrite Tavrion was a catacomb priest who joined the official church (the Moscow Patriarchate) without betraying his catacomb convictions and genuine Orthodoxy - may at first sight seem surprising. How can such a thing be? Are not these two entirely separate and mutually exclusive church bodies? Is not the very joining of the official church a betrayal of the catacomb position? In theory it would seem so, but church life often cannot be fit into convenient rational and canonical categories. So it is in this case.
The members - and especially the clergy - of the Catacomb Church in Russia are the heroes of Russian Orthodoxy in the 20th century. But, especially at the present time, they are almost entirely deprived of direct influence on the Orthodox faithful of Russia. They are so secretive that they can scarcely be found at all, and for the most part they exist not in communities but in solitary cells. Few Orthodox Christians, even the most sincere, can endure their difficult struggle, particularly when it means - as it often does - being deprived of the Church's Holy Mysteries.
It is not entirely surprising, then, that sympathizers with and even direct adherents of the Catacomb Church should be found at times in the official church, trying to speak the truth and do the work of God in spite of the betrayal of the church leadership. One can speak of several such people in the past decade: Boris Talantov, Fr. Dimitry Dudko, Elder Tavrion...
Have they succeeded? In one sense, no: the Moscow Patriarchate has not changed and undoubtedly will not change until Communism itself falls is Russia; there is no hope whatever that a return to normal Orthodox church life will occur through the official church. In this sense the heartfelt efforts of men like Boris Talantov and Fr. Dimitry Dudko are doomed to failure - as the Soviet authorities demonstrated convincingly last year by breaking (at least temporarily) the spirit of Fr. Dimitry.
But perhaps we are making a mistake in looking for "success" in this attempt. The ultimate "answer" to the problem of 20th century Russian Orthodoxy will not be given as long as atheism reigns in Russia and continues to exert its dictatorship over the Church; the hierarchs of the Catacomb Church in Russia, as of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, have always deferred the final judgement of the Russian church situation to the future free council that will meet only when Communism falls. Then, we believe, the Catacomb Church will have the final word and justify its struggle, and those who gave in to Sergianism will be judged - according to God's judgement, which is revealed in the Church's true councils, and not according to man's opinions.
The present church situation in Russia is not final, and even while expressing our own definite opinions on the betrayal of the Church by Sergianism, we are mistaken if we apply final judgements to this fluid situation.
And what does the Catacomb Church itself think? Not since its foundation in 1927 has the Catacomb Church had an authoritative voice - a free council of bishops speaking for the whole Church - to speak its mind. Individual Catacomb hierarchs and faithful have expressed sometimes varying opinions. But responsible voices within this Church have usually said one and the same thing: Sergianism is a betrayal, we must stay clear of it; but we need not deny the grace of the Mysteries of its clergy or expect all the faithful to be able to follow us. Such were the views of the wise early hierarchs of the Catacomb Church, set forth in most detail by Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan.
After the Second World War, by which time most of the early leaders of the Catacomb Church had died in prison or exile, there has been almost nothing that could be called a statement of the Catacomb Church on these questions. In 1977, however, with the publication of Lev Regelson's "Tragedy of the Russian Church" (YMCA Press, Paris), which is actually an apology for the early Catacomb position against Sergianism, a Catacomb document of 1962 was published, and it discusses precisely these questions.
Regelson believes that this document - which circulated in samizdat in Russia until he published it - was written by "one of the spiritually authoritative persons of the Catacomb Church" (pg. 124). Its tone is very similar to the formal catacomb documents of 1971, "Russia and the Church Today" and "Church and Authority" (The Orthodox Word, 1972, no. 44). It was written as a letter of advice to sympathizers or perhaps members of the Catacomb Church who evidently could not find catacomb services and and thought of attending services of the official church; the year of its composition was at the peak of the new persecutions of Khrushchev (1959-64), when the majority of still-open churches were closed. The letter is a firm statement of uncompromising principle, ranking with the early epistles of the Josephite hierarchs; but it is also filled with loving condescension for one's weaker brothers who are either unable to bear the difficulties of today's Catacomb Church, or are simple unable to find it, and it breathes hope for the eventual restoration of order to the suffering Russian Church when the atheist yoke will finally be overthrown.
The attitude of this epistle to the Russian church situation and the Moscow Patriarchate is, one can fairly say, identical to the attitude of the Russian Church Outside of Russia: in spiritual freedom (within the confines of his catacombs) and with an uncompromising position on church principle, the writer refrains from making final judgements or from separating himself entirely from the faithful (as opposed to the hierarchs) of the whole Russian Church; a profound church instinct tells him that, despite the tragedy of Sergianism, all the sincere Orthodox believers of Russia are still part of the same Church.
(From the "Orthodox Word", # 96, Jan. - Feb. 1981)